Poisoned wine attachment and moribund character

[End Hill 0]

Can Poisoned Wine attachments ability be triggered when its attached to a moribund card, ie can It be moved off moribund character in step 5 of action window and be moved onto another character in play.

Thanks

[radiskull 39]

No, actions need to fully resolve before other Any Phase actions may be played.

[Saturnine 47]

End Hill said:

Can Poisoned Wine attachments ability be triggered when its attached to a moribund card, ie can It be moved off moribund character in step 5 of action window and be moved onto another character in play.

 

Step 5 isn't an action window, it's a the step during which "Response" effects take place during the currently open action window. As radiskull pointed out, you cannot play a standard player action (such as an "Any Phase" effect) until after that action window closes, at which point the attachment has already been discarded.

But even if it could be played then as a response it wouldn't help you, because the attachment becomes moribund in step 4 as a passive reaction to the attached character becoming moribund. So it would end up in the discard pile, no matter where you move it. But that's only a theoretical example, because Poisoned Wine, as said above, requires a standard player action.

[End Hill 0]

Saturnine said:

 

 

 because the attachment becomes moribund in step 4 as a passive reaction to the attached character becoming moribund. .

 

 

 

How did you find out about the attachment becoming moribund as a passive reaction in (step 4) Passives ?

Thanks 

[End Hill 0]

Oh of coarse !

I always knew it was Responses in step 5 but for some reason I thought "Aby Phase" could be deemed as a response but clearly its not, its an action and 1st action window has to be fully resolved before I can play another action thus the attachments already lost. I get it guys. Thanks. 

I would like to know how you know attachments become moribund in step 4 passives.

Thanks again.

[schrecklich 0]

End Hill said:

Saturnine said:

 

 

 because the attachment becomes moribund in step 4 as a passive reaction to the attached character becoming moribund. .

 

 

 

How did you find out about the attachment becoming moribund as a passive reaction in (step 4) Passives ?

Thanks 

The FAQ says "Cards that are killed, discarded, or returned to hand or deck (including their attachments) during the action window are considered Moribund for the remaining duration of the Action Window, and do not physically leave play until Step 6" in its description of Step 3 "Action Executed."

(Mainly, I am just replying so that the thread will appear "read" for me).

[Saturnine 47]

End Hill said:

 

How did you find out about the attachment becoming moribund as a passive reaction in (step 4) Passives ?

 

 

Through this forum, basically

But generally, there's no other place to put it in the timing structure. We know that when a character leaves play, any attachments on it are discarded. A character leaves play (becomes moribund) in step 3 when whatever effect that makes them leave play resolves. But discarding the attachment is not part of resolving the effect on the character (unless the effect specifically removes both character and attachments from play simulatenously), and it's certainly not a response, because it's not optional. So it falls into the passive category.

At least that is how I rationalize it because I keep forgetting the smart answers ktom has given in the past.

[ktom 598]

That's the correct reasoning, but here is what starts the whole process:

In the definition of Attachments cards on p. 5 of the rule book, it says "Attachments are discarded from play if the card they are attached to leaves play for any reason (such as being killed, discarded, or returned to your hand or deck)."

So while it doesn't say anywhere in the rules "attachments are discarded from play as a passive result of the card they are attached to leaving play in Step 4 of the action window," it doesn't really need to. We have the basic rule from the definition of attachments, which is clearly read as "after X happens, do Y." You have no choice in the matter. Where in the action window do you resolve things you have no choice about doing that only happen because something else happens first? Step 4: Passives.

 

 

[End Hill 0]

Thanks guys. I did check in the FAQ book but failed to check the official rule book on that one.

[schrecklich 0]

 If attachments are discarded passively in step 4, does that mean the first player has the option to resolve the discarding of attachments after other passives that also are initiated by the effect in steps 1-3, perhaps even an effect that would remove an attachment from play?  Or are you saying that it occurs at the beginning of step 4 before other passives?  To me, the presence of the phrase "(including their attachments)" in the description of step 3 makes it sound like attachments become moribund in step 3 along with the thing they are attached to.

EDIT: On the other hand, if attachments were discarded in step 3, there would be no opportunity to save them with effects like that of Davos Seaworth.  Now I remember having this discussion with ktom in the past and that that was why attachments were discarded passively in step 4: so that there was an opportunity to save them.  Still I am unsure about the answer to my first question.

[ktom 598]

schrecklich said:

 If attachments are discarded passively in step 4, does that mean the first player has the option to resolve the discarding of attachments after other passives that also are initiated by the effect in steps 1-3, perhaps even an effect that would remove an attachment from play?

Only if there is some sort of conflict. Remember, the all passives are considered to happen at the same time. The First Player only gets involved when they cannot resolve at the same time for practical reasons (like being discarded or killed at the same time). So, for example, if the attacker has some passive ability like "after you win a military challenge, choose an attachment and return it to its owners hand," the First Player would decide whether the attacker got a chance to choose one of the attachments on the character killed for claim before they were discarded as a result of that character being killed. Other than something like that, there are not likely to be many true conflicts regarding when an attachment is discarded as a result of the character it is on leaving play.

schrecklich said:

To me, the presence of the phrase "(including their attachments)" in the description of step 3 makes it sound like attachments become moribund in step 3 along with the thing they are attached to.

The section you are referring to (on p. 16) says this:

"3) Action is executed
The active player now executes the effects of
the action. If this action discards one or more
cards, kills one or more characters, returns one
or more cards to a player's hand or deck, or
moves a card to a player's shadows area, these
cards do not yet leave play. Cards that are
killed, discarded, or returned to hand or deck
(including their attachments) during the action
window are considered Moribund for the
remaining duration of the Action Window, and
do not physically leave play until Step 6."

 

The statement that says "including their attachments" doesn't say anything about when all these cards actually enter moribund. It refers to cards that leave play "during the action window," not "during this step." You would extend what it says about being considered moribund back to Step 1, wouldn't you, rather than interpreting this as meaning anything killed for cost doesn't become moribund until Step 3, right? Same thing for "including their attachments" extending ahead to Step 4.

Taken on its own, yes, this entry could be read to imply attachments leave play in Step 3, but taken in complete context of the entire "action window" section, this is a statement clarifying the moribund state, not dictating when attachments enter said state/are discarded.

[Rogue30 60]

I'm curious: If we treat above as a passive effect and not as a game rule, then is Northern steel discarded in step 6 if attached character dies? Can I still use Davos to save Northern steel?

[ktom 598]

Rogue30 said:

I'm curious: If we treat above as a passive effect and not as a game rule,

Why would we do that? We treat discarding attachments as a rule of the game that resolves passively. The two are not mutually exclusive. All rules of the game fit into the timing structure somewhere. The fact that framework action windows tell you when to do the things described in the rules of the game does not make them "framework effects" instead of rules of the game. They are both.

 

Rogue30 said:

then is Northern steel discarded in step 6 if attached character dies? Can I still use Davos to save Northern steel?

Remember that when the character has been killed and enters moribund, you trigger effects as if it had already left play. Consider The Titan's Bastard, who Responds to cards being "placed" in the dead pile. When you trigger his ability, the cards are not physically in the dead pile (and won't be until Step 6), so nothing has been placed. Or what about The Viper's Bannermen, getting cards for "leaving play" while the card is still on the table, in moribund?

 

The rules tell us to activate passives and Responses that trigger from the card leaving play even though the card is physically on the table, in moribund. So when the character dies out from under Norther Steel, it can be discarded - as if the character had already left play, making the "cannot be discarded while attached to a Stark character" ability inapplicable. The whole reason we discard any attachment when the card under it dies is because it is technically not attached to anything anymore (despite the card being in moribund), and therefore illegal. That "technically not attached to anything anymore" makes the standard timing apply to Northern Steel.

(And before anyone pulls out the "so Benjen should shuffle himself back into the deck, right?" counter to that, remember that the rules say you consider the cards to have left play for knowing which passives and Responses are triggered - not for purposes of resolving them. Essentially, the "as if already gone from play" only applies to checking play restrictions.)

[Rogue30 60]

Forgive me, but this game is too complicated for me. So you say that "cannot be discarded from play while attached" is simply false at that moment, because the card is not considered attached?

BTW Moribund card has left play "but only for the purposes of triggering responses and passive abilities". Rulebook attachment definition is not passive ability. Should this be corrected?

You certainly don't say that moribund character with Aegon's Blade doesn't have STR +2 for purposes of triggering Free Cities Mercenaries, right?

You said yourself "only applies to checking play restrictions" - and "cannot be discarded" is constant effect not play restriction.

[ktom 598]

Rogue30 said:

BTW Moribund card has left play "but only for the purposes of triggering responses and passive abilities". Rulebook attachment definition is not passive ability. Should this be corrected?

Why is the statement "attachments are discarded from play if the card they are attached to leaves play for any reason" from the rules not a passive effect? If it is not executed as a passive effect, please explain the timing for enforcing this rule.

Rogue30 said:

You certainly don't say that moribund character with Aegon's Blade doesn't have STR +2 for purposes of triggering Free Cities Mercenaries, right?

Of course not. The direct quote from the FAQ is:

"A Moribund card (and its attachments) is
considered to have been killed, discarded,
returned to its owner's hand or deck, or moved
to its owner's shadows area, but only for the
purposes of triggering responses and passive
abilities. This includes responses and passive
abilities triggered by a card being placed in
the appropriate out-of-play area. A Moribund
card is, for all other purposes, still considered
in play."

If you are determining if a passive or Response can initiate, you consider the card to have left play already. "FOR ALL OTHER PURPOSES" it is still in play.

Rogue30 said:

You said yourself "only applies to checking play restrictions" - and "cannot be discarded" is constant effect not play restriction.

"Cannot be discarded" is a constant effect. But in this case, there is a condition upon it (if attached to a Stark card) that is a play restriction. Plus, the rule of the game, resolving passively, that is actually doing the discarding will be subject to any play restrictions placed upon it by active effects. I'm giving you a reason for why the "cannot be discarded" effect is not active as far as the "attachments are discarded from play if the card they are attached to leaves play for any reason" rule. The moribund character is considered to have left play for the purpose of deciding what to do with its (now illegal) attachments (choices being discard it, or interrupt the discard with an appropriate save). You discard it. Northern Steel says it cannot be discarded while it is attached to a Stark character. But the rule/effect deciding what to do with it has already said that as far as it is concerned, that Stark character has left play, so it doesn't see the "cannot be discarded" instruction as valid. The invalidation of the "cannot be discarded" when it comes to resolving the situation of a character killed out from under it is completely consistent with "only for the purposes of triggering responses and passive abilities" text related to moribund cards (and remember, the moribund card in this situation is the character, not Northern Steel).

Your other option is completely foreign to the game's timing structure. Wait for the window to end and the character to physically leave play. Now, your Northern Steel is sitting on the table, not attached to anything. So you pick it up and put it...in the discard pile. You have no opportunity to save it, because there is no effect resolving - so nothing to interrupt. (BTW: If the rule for discarding attachments when their attached character is not resolved as a passive effect, why aren't all attachments on dead characters lost this way?

 

[Rogue30 60]

ktom said:

Why is the statement "attachments are discarded from play if the card they are attached to leaves play for any reason" from the rules not a passive effect?

My point was, that it can be special passive game effect, not passive ability.

 

ktom said:

Your other option is completely foreign to the game's timing structure.

And why do you think I wrote all this in the first place? Nevermind, you will never understand what I'm doing here, just forget that I ask this question, ok?

[Bolzano2 0]

The rules make attachment to be discarded when attached card becomes moribund.

As per the FAQ this is not a passive effect :

"Passive Abilities: Passive abilities must
initiate when applicable. These abilities are
identified by their card text"

and again p.14 :

"A passive ability is defined as an ability on a
card already in play"

The game rule are not identified by their card text so they cannot be passive abilities. They are just game effects.

This would lead to what ktom has explained, the attachment Northern Steel staying in play while the character is in deadpile. He would thus become illegal and be discarded.

However the rules says you cannot even attempt to do something you cannot and it would be thus illegal to make attached character moribund. Which is obviously not the purpose of Northern Steel.

So Rogue30 assumption that FAQ statement on attachement discard should be corrected seems valid enough for me.

[ktom 598]

Rogue30 said:

My point was, that it can be special passive game effect, not passive ability.

And what I'm trying to find out is what the difference is. Other than the label you put on it and whether it is written in the rulebook or on a card, how is a passive game effect different from a passive ability.

Rogue30 said:

And why do you think I wrote all this in the first place? Nevermind, you will never understand what I'm doing here, just forget that I ask this question, ok?

I understand better than you think.

But, whatever you say. Must not have been all that important to you.

[dcdennis 39]

 I am having so much fun reading this rules forum today. Let me pause to thank Ktom for his endless patience in answering these questions before I ask another potentially stupid one.

 

Hypothetical Situation:

 [Poisoned Wine] is attached to [Character Y] (lets assume Y has a blank text box)

 [Character Y] is killed for [Reason Z]

Reference: (Poisoned Wine - Any Phase: Kneel 1 influence to move Poisoned Wine to another eligible character.)

 

 

 

 

Questions:

1. In response to [Character Y] being killed we cannot use [Poisoned Wine]'s ability to transfer it to another character because it's ability is an Any Phase action as opposed to a Response, and thus not legal to use at this time. 

2. Upon [Character Y] being killed without anyone triggering a response, [Poisoned Wine] is detached and thus discarded because it is now an illegal card. No interactions can be made with [Poisoned Wine] post detachment because you cannot interact with a card in an illegal state.

3. Hypothetical: If [Poisoned Wine]'s ability instead read: "Response: When attached character is killed, kneel 1 influence to move Poisoned Wine to another eligible character." Would it then be legal to invoke as a response to [Character Y] being killed since it would be triggered by the player after the character is killed but before the kill event is fully resolved?

 

Thank you and please be brutal in your replies. I really want to get a handle on all the nuances of the timing structure before I play again to avoid arguments

 

[ktom 598]

dh098017 said:

2. Upon [Character Y] being killed without anyone triggering a response, [Poisoned Wine] is detached and thus discarded because it is now an illegal card. No interactions can be made with [Poisoned Wine] post detachment because you cannot interact with a card in an illegal state.

This part is not entirely true.

Upon [Character Y] being killed without being saved, [Poisoned Wine] is discarded because the rules say attachments are discarded if the card they are attached to leaves play. The natural time to do this at the same time everything else that is done automatically after something else happens - the passive step of the action window. This give you a chance to save the attachment, and then use it as a moribund card until the action window closes.

dh098017 said:

3. Hypothetical: If [Poisoned Wine]'s ability instead read: "Response: When attached character is killed, kneel 1 influence to move Poisoned Wine to another eligible character." Would it then be legal to invoke as a response to [Character Y] being killed since it would be triggered by the player after the character is killed but before the kill event is fully resolved?

If it had this Response, it would still be too late to move it after the character it was attached to dies. Remember that NOTHING can happen "after the character is killed but before the kill event is fully resolved." (Well, almost nothing; hold on a second.) The order is always: initiate, resolve, passive, respond. Since the attachment is discarded at "passive," even a Response like the one you suggest will come too late.

The exception is a Response effect that uses the word "save" or "cancel." These are the only things that can happen between "initiate" and "resolve."

If Poison Wine instead said "Response: save poison wine from being discarded, then move it to another eligible character, if able," you be able to use that ability after the character it was attached to died ("resolve") as part of the passive process of discarding the attachment from play.